Debates of June 17th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, what can I say? I am disappointed with the question the member has asked me. What I have heard throughout the day is how the Liberals want to just deflect and place responsibility on the previous government.

The Liberals had six years to fix this issue that they apparently knew about before they became the government. Maybe it is time for them to start looking at themselves internally and ask what they can do. They say big words, that they are going to protect women, to support women. Maybe it is time for action now. That is what Canadian women in the armed forces and in uniform are looking for.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very moving speech. I agree with her on several points.

The time has come to protect these women. All day I heard Liberals say that we must protect women. However, they continue to protect a man who failed these women. We know that the Minister of National Defence protected General Vance instead of protecting women.

My colleague said that it is time for action and that the time for reports is over. I could not agree more. I believe that censuring the Minister of National Defence is a first step, but what should the Liberal government do next?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. There are a lot of words that have been said for decades. Over the last few months, we have heard more words. We have heard more fluffy words: “We protect women. We are the feminist government.”

If we look back, the definition of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces was not even fixed. Even though that was recommended in 2015 in the Deschamps report, nothing was done until November 2020. It is basically the Liberal government saying a lot of fluffy words and doing nothing for women.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her emphasis on the victims. I know she appreciates that the Liberals in the defence committee spent more time than anyone else bringing forward the evidence of the victims and trying to have solutions for the victims.

The member talks about action. Unfortunately, she was not at our committee, but there was close to an hour of evidence of all the actions the minister has taken to fight this, more than any other minister in history. As the member asks for actions more than words, could she talk about any actions that any other minister has done? We had an hour's worth of what this minister has done to fight sexual misconduct in the military.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to go with the survivors and believe what they have told me. They have basically said there has been no cultural change in the Canadian Armed Forces and women continue to suffer because of the lack of action by the government and the boys' club that continues to put women down. This is exactly what we see here: one man protecting the other. I cannot emphasize enough that every witness we spoke to basically said that the change has to come from the top down. That is where the cultural change needs to start.

I would say that whatever has been done is not enough. We need to move forward with concrete actions that help women, so this does not happen to another woman in the Canadian Armed Forces or in uniform.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, in our democracy, Parliament seldom has to have such a serious debate on the failures of one of its members. We must not, under any circumstances, take this situation lightly.

Recent and not-so-recent events are forcing us to question how well one of our own is performing his ministerial duties. There is no denying that we are finding many faults with the Minister of National Defence, who must answer to the citizens we represent in Ottawa.

Before formulating my opinion, I want to make one thing clear: The minister is not the only one accountable. There is also the Prime Minister. He is the one who appointed the Minister of National Defence and signed his mandate letter.

In my opinion, tonight's debate is inextricably tied to the Prime Minister's judgment and his ability to spring into action when duty calls. Unfortunately, the fact that we are debating this in the House means there is a problem, a breach of our trust in the government on a specific subject.

The Prime Minister had plenty of opportunities to show the leadership that his role calls for, but he did not. The member for Durham's motion is harsh, but the reality is that we are indeed disappointed with the Minister of National Defence. The Bloc Québécois called for the minister's resignation just last month. We are even more sure that that is the only possible course since the most recent shameful episode of his term.

As opposition members, we have a duty to confront the government and its ministers about their actions. That is the essence of ministerial responsibility. It is the essence of our democracy.

The Liberals blame all their failings on systemic problems, yet they are the ones in charge of the system. There is still time to show that there is at least one working system in Canada that the government has full control over. The only possible course is for the minister to step down.

Let us start with some of the less serious criticisms of the minister. First, the minister misled Quebeckers and Canadians over the withdrawal of fighter jets in the fight against ISIS. The minister said that Canada's allies had no problem with the CF‑18s being withdrawn from Operation Impact, shortly after the Liberals came to power in 2015.

According to him and the Liberals, Canada's allies understood and respected Canada's decision to withdraw its CF-18s. That is not true. We expect the things a minister says to be true. We would never have expected him to say something so easily refutable, since a minister can usually count on competent staff to help him avoid embarrassment. The situation was the opposite of what the minister was saying: The Iraqis and our allies were strongly opposed to the withdrawal of our aircraft. The media obtained copies of documents indicating that such was the case.

When confronted with that revelation, the minister alleged in an interview that he had actually wanted Canada to keep its CF-18s there, which says a lot about the liberties the minister takes with the facts when it involves our allies. Sadly, the minister's blunders do not end there.

The government knows as well as I do that many Quebeckers and Canadians are proud of our military capabilities and the people responsible for our success. Many Quebeckers and Canadians respect and recognize the work being done by those risking their lives for us and our freedom. Our fellow citizens are humbled by the accomplishments of our soldiers.

Meanwhile, during a speech in India, the minister said that he was the architect of Operation Medusa in 2006 in Afghanistan. Actually, I should say that he took credit for the work of his colleagues. To give a little bit of background, this operation managed to surround and eliminate up to 700 Taliban fighters who had gathered to launch attacks on allied bases. Canada, the Afghan army and other allied nations managed to defeat the Taliban soldiers. The offensive was led by Canada thanks to many of our military officers.

The men and women who serve Quebec and Canada are very proud of their teamwork. Teamwork is not about playing the hero for the public or showing off at a reception by making self-important boasts.

Operations are not carried out solo, especially not operations like that one. Even de Gaulle, Churchill and MacArthur would never have claimed to be the architects of anything whatsoever. No matter the context, planning an operation depends heavily on intel from troops on the ground and the tactical skills of all kinds of people.

At the time, the minister was involved in planning Operation Medusa, but he was not working alone. Bringing this up again in 2021 seems silly, but it is part of a continuum of untruths and deceit that point to the minister's priority being his own self-interest. But wait, there is more. The minister presided over the indictment and removal of Vice-Admiral Norman. More Quebeckers and Canadians should be familiar with that story. The whole thing is an embarrassment and unworthy of the offices held.

Shortly before the 2015 federal election, the Conservatives announced that they had at long last granted a contract to convert a container ship into an oiler replenishment ship for the Royal Navy. The plan was to build that ship, the Asterix, at the Davie shipyard in Quebec, for once. When the Liberals took office in 2015, the first thing they did was try to cancel the contract in favour of the Irving family.

Scott Brison, the minister's good friend and the former president of the Treasury Board, was very close to the Irving family. He knew them. It is perfectly simple. He tried to derail the contract. I will give Mr. Brison credit for finally backing down once the story hit the media. It is very typical Liberal behaviour. That always seems to be the Liberal approach to decision-making. Do the Toronto Star, Global News, CBC and Radio-Canada know about this? If not, then we will do it. Do they know about this? If so, then we will not do it. That is how the Liberals operate. Sadly, it did not stop there.

The Liberals chose to behave like an angry mob: find the whistle blower and take him out. Who better than the good old RCMP to act as the political police and investigate the leak? That is what led to the filing of charges against Vice‑Admiral Mark Norman, who at one time was the second-highest ranking officer in the Canadian Armed Forces under General Vance. Instead of standing up and ending the witch hunt, the minister did what he does best, in other words protect his interests and the interests of the Liberals.

The Minister of Defence, like the current Prime Minister, did not defend Norman when Vance accused him publicly. The minister even supported Vance's decision to suspend Norman in 2017. As I said, that is embarrassing. It happened one year before Norman was formally charged with leaking confidential documents. “When the decision was made, I supported it”, the minister said. The Prime Minister still owes him for that, because he again looked ridiculous.

The numerous documents obtained by Norman's defence team proved that the Liberals were trying to rip up the contract. The government was so embarrassed that Brison resigned from all his roles. Even more embarrassingly, Norman was eventually completely exonerated, but he never got his job back.

The minister is not a team player. How many people have left under his leadership? Five, six, seven or eight people have left, and that cannot continue. Sometimes life gives us subtle signs. Can the minister see these signs? Can the Prime Minister see them? We, the opposition parties, certainly can.

It is also difficult to ignore what happened to former ombudsman Gary Walbourne. Several of my colleagues, who are more eloquent than I am, had the opportunity to speak more specifically about the problem of sexual misconduct in the army. The minister has become known for his failures on this matter.

Nevertheless, I want to come back to it because it ties in with what I was saying earlier in my speech. The Liberals' little clique was not happy with the ombudsman, an extremely important official in the Canadian military. He was dragged through the mud, accused of terrible things and had his funding cut off. The minister was at the centre of the disagreement with Gary Walbourne, who was just trying to do his job. When he approached the minister about setting their differences aside to address an issue more important than their feud, specifically an allegation that General Vance had committed sexual misconduct towards a female soldier, the minister did little if anything.

He did not want to hear about it, so he passed the puck to the Prime Minister's Office. Remember, the Minister of National Defence is the boss of the department. Quite aside from the substance of the case, which is terrible, I am interested in the minister's behaviour. The one time in his career when he could have really been the architect of something, he looked the other way.

He could have spearheaded a complete overhaul of the culture at the Canadian Armed Forces, but instead, we lost three years. The survivors lost three years. Once again, the Minister of National Defence has not demonstrated that he is a team player. Worse still, when the story first broke, he denied it, then admitted it, then pointed the finger at Gary Walbourne's incompetence.

The next step, taken straight out of the Liberal crisis management playbook, is to blame something systemic.

I have my own theory. A problematic culture, a systemic problem, is not an incantation. Something must be done. Waiting to be painted into a corner before deciding to do something is not worthy of the office of minister. That is exactly what we are talking about today, being worthy of the office, being responsible and accountable. The minister is no longer worthy of his office.

The Prime Minister may not see that, but I hope my hon. colleagues do.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech.

He did a good job of telling the troubling story of the Liberals and the Minister of National Defence. The Liberals truly did not take their responsibilities; neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of National Defence.

What does the member think we should do?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

First, we want the Minister of National Defence to resign. There comes a point when a line has been crossed and there is no going back. That is what has happened. Actually, that line was crossed a long time ago.

I understand the Liberals' partisan concerns. It is in their DNA. They are very good at blaming the people opposite, but they have never been good at introspection or soul-searching.

Now is the time to do that. They must take a good, hard look in the mirror. The only decision, the right decision, is for the Minister of National Defence to resign.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, in so many ways the member is wrong. In fact, in listening to him I thought maybe he grabbed the wrong speaking notes. It sounds more like a Conservative speech than a Bloc party speech, which emphasizes the degree to which the Bloc have fallen into the gutter with the Conservatives on this issue.

Let me quote Brigadier-General David Fraser, who was in charge of NATO's regional command in Afghanistan, referring to the Minister of National Defence in 2006:

He tirelessly and selflessly devoted himself to piecing together the ground truth on tribal and Taliban networks in the Kandahar area, and his analysis was so compelling that it drove a number of large scale theatre-resourced efforts, including Operation Medusa, a large scale conventional combat operation that resulted in the defeat of the largest TB cell yet identified in Afghanistan, with over 1500 Taliban killed or captured. I rate him as one of the best intelligence officers I have ever worked with—fearless, smart, and personable—and I would not hesitate to have him on my staff at any time in the future.

The Conservatives and the Bloc are all about character assassination, and I say shame on both those political parties. I would ask the member this: Would he apply to the leader of the official opposition the very same principles that he is applying in this situation?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is fascinating.

When we supported the Liberals on Bill C‑10, the Conservatives said we sounded just like the Liberals. Now that we are supporting this Conservative motion, the Liberals say we sound just like the Conservatives. When I said they were partisan, this is exactly what I was talking about.

The speech I just gave was made up of known facts that are documented and have been reported in the media, and yet, I am still being told that I did not quote any facts, which is absurd.

The Bloc Québécois does not take position based on where people sit in the House. If something is good for Quebec, we vote for it; if it is not good for Quebec, we vote against it. When we consider a motion that speaks to our conscience, we vote according to our conscience.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the more interesting aspects of the member's intervention was his recognition that the systemic excuse that the Liberals are using is not entirely valid. That is because they have been in power in government for so many years. Similarly, the Conservatives have had a role in this to some degree through their ownership of the start of this entire discussion.

I would like to know a little more about that, because there have even been reports that have been overlooked. The systemic lack of work on this issue extends beyond just this Department of National Defence file and veterans. I think it is also in Parliament. Perhaps the member could expand on that, because I think it is important to note that it is not an acceptable excuse that it is systemic when the Liberals have been in power for so long.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I completely agree with him. The Deschamps report was written in 2015, but never considered. It was shelved. They say that the Liberals have done a lot for survivors of sexual misconduct in the military. I have to say that was not part of the mandate letter of the Minister of National Defence.

The Liberals have been in power for six years and all they are doing now is blaming the Conservatives for things that happened 10 years ago. Their only argument to save the minister is that he is a good guy and it would be fun to grab a beer with him. The Liberals should stand up, look in the mirror and take action.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

I have to come back to the question from the member for Winnipeg North because I am stunned. I am outraged.

In the current context, we talk a lot about violence against women and we denounce the culture of harassment and sexual violence in the military. In defence of his minister, the member for Winnipeg North says that the minister is a good guy and we should look at his list of accomplishments. That is like telling a battered woman that her husband is a very good guy even though he beats her up all week.

Does my colleague get the impression that, in addition to being incapable of speaking out against violence against women, the Liberals seem to be condoning it?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I could not have said it better. She got it exactly right. It is sad that the member for Winnipeg North is playing politics on such an important and sensitive issue. We need to be there for victims and survivors. There must be accountability. Right now, someone failed these women, the victims and survivors.

Even if the minister is the best person in the world, as it has been said, he cannot remain in his position. It is not possible. People need to be responsible for their actions, especially when they are a minister. Being the Minister of National Defence is no small matter. It is a big deal.

I could not have said it better than my colleague did. The government knows that there is only one thing to do, and the opposition parties agree. In my opinion, it is time for the minister to resign.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say how much I enjoyed the speech from the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and that I enjoyed working with him on the national defence committee, as he is the critic for the Bloc Québécois on national defence.

The member talked about the minister needing to resign, and I appreciate his support of our motion today to censure the minister because of this constant misleading of the House and Canadians. He very eloquently laid out the litany of problems that we have had with this minister over the past six years.

In light of the fact that the minister will not do the honourable thing and resign, and knowing that we are going to censure him because of his behaviour and dishonourable conduct as a parliamentarian, as a minister, will the Bloc Québécois also call on the Prime Minister to fire the Minister of National Defence?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I really like working with him because he is honest, true and serious. He works really hard on the Standing Committee on National Defence and is very familiar with the files.

I agree with my colleague. In one way or another, it has to be done. If the minister does not want to resign, if he does not want to do it himself, and that would be the most honourable way to do it, then we will compel him to leave.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I usually say it is an honour to join in any discussion and debate on the floor of the House of Commons, but today it is not an honour. It is actually with a heavy heart that I join in the debate, because we are once again talking about sexual harassment and allegations of sexual impropriety in our armed forces.

Many colleagues have spoken very eloquently on this debate, including the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. A lot of people have brought their own personal experiences to this House today and have spoken passionately on why there needs to be a cultural change in our armed forces.

I am a six-foot four-inch 255-pound, or sometimes 260-pound, farm boy from Saskatchewan, so I have not had a lot of experience with sexual harassment personally. However, people who are close to me have. Talking with them about the experiences they have gone through, I have always taken this very seriously. It is a passion of mine that any kind of sexual harassment should be stopped dead in its tracks. We should stand up for the victims, always.

Some of the questions from the Liberal MPs today invoked the minister's past history. That is not what we are here to discuss today. We are here to discuss his overseeing of a continuation of sexual harassment and a culture of depravity in our armed forces. We need to listen to the victims when they come forward. That is what we are discussing.

For my Liberal colleagues, we are not tarnishing the record of the minister's service when he was a soldier in the armed forces; we are talking about his record as the Minister of National Defence of our country. It is not well suited for him to continue in this position. He misled Canadians when it came to the fighter jets. He misled Canadians when it came to Vice-Admiral Norman. He made sure that the culture of sexual harassment could continue in the armed forces.

When some of our senior people in the Canadian Armed Forces are golfing with someone who has had that charge brought against them, it shows a complete and utter disrespect for the members of the armed forces who have come forward to talk about their harrowing sexual harassment experiences.

The victims are not the only ones who have to go through this. Their family members do as well. They are there to support the victims when they have nowhere else to turn. For those family members, this does not go away. There is a lifetime of trying to get through what has happened at the hands of the aggressor. It is something that needs to be stopped in its tracks, and if the minister has shown an inability to do that, we need to hold him to account in this House by voting in favour of this motion. He does not have the moral authority or the legitimacy to continue on in his role as the Minister of National Defence for our country. The House has to say that in one voice. That would show that we do want this culture in the Canadian Armed Forces to change. It is something we need to do as a single voice.

I appreciate all the speeches from my Bloc colleagues, my NDP colleagues and everyone in the opposition who is going to stand with the victims of sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces by saying, “No more.” It cannot continue. Something or someone needs to be put in place to change that culture.

We could just look at the department plan, for example. A colleague, the member for Edmonton West, pointed this out to me. This is almost unforgivable. The goal for the Department of National Defence is to have 12% or less people reporting sexual harassment. That is the target. That is the goal.

Colleagues, that goal should be zero, not 12%. If they cannot figure that out on the other side of the House, then most of them are not fit to be in the positions they are in. There should not be a 12% goal of sexual harassment in any department anywhere in Canada.

The Liberals have said they are going to bring back reports. Some of these reports have not brought in any goals since 2018. The Liberals always say there are systemic issues in the departments or systems in Canada. They always like to say they are the natural governing party of Canada. Liberals have been in office more than anyone else, so it is their systems that they say they cannot change.

If they are not willing to do it, in the Conservative Party of Canada we have a government-in-waiting that will not stand for sexual harassment in our Canadian Armed Forces. Our goal will be zero sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces, not 12%.

I am sure that when the member for Durham sends out his mandate letters to ministers, especially to the minister of defence, it will mention the culture of sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces and the fact that it needs to change. The men and women in uniform will have a minister of defence in the Conservative government whom they can trust, whom they have respect for, who will make sure to have their backs.

That is not what is happening right now. Many colleagues who have very good relationships with the members of the Canadian Armed Forces have told their stories. They have said that it is almost impossible to continue to have respect for a minister who continues to let them down time and again. This is not a single instance. There are four or five defining moments in this minister's career over the past six years when he has failed to measure up to the bar of the minister of defence, whether it be Vice-Admiral Norman, the fighter jets, his taking liberties with his own record, or the sexual assault of individuals in the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to do better. Canadians and the hard-working men and women in uniform deserve better than the record of this minister over the past six years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:30 and this being the final supply day in the period ending June 23, 2021, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), the division stands deferred until later today.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that it has passed the following two bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-211, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day, and Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (use of resources).

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

That Vote 1, in the amount of $741,693,237, under Department of Transport — Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, be concurred in.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak about the government-wide main estimates for 2021-22.

As members know, on February 25, the hon. Minister of Seniors tabled, on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board, the annual departmental plans and the main estimates, 2021-22.

These main estimates have been studied and last week the President of the Treasury Board put forward the motion that the main estimates, less the amounts voted in the interim supply, be approved by this House. Today, I would like to explain why this is so important and the steps the government has taken to ensure transparency and accountability in government spending.

As Canadians continue to fight COVID‑19 and its devastating impacts, the main estimates set out the government's requests for the financing needed to fund its ongoing operations in the year ahead.

As we all know, when the COVID‑19 pandemic hit, it plunged our country into our worst recession since the Great Depression. Tens of thousands of businesses closed down, and jobs and incomes were lost all across the country. The hardest hit were seniors, women, young people, racialized communities, low-income workers and small businesses, especially in the tourism and hospitality industry.

The pandemic took the lives of too many Canadians.

An essential part of Canada's fight against COVID‑19 has been the unprecedented support made available to Canadians and Canadian businesses by the government. We knew Canadians needed a lifeline to get through the COVID‑19 storm, so we launched programs to help our citizens, like the Canada emergency response benefit, the Canada emergency student benefit, the Canada emergency wage subsidy and targeted support for regions, economic sectors and not-for-profit organizations. This approach has worked, but the storm is not over. Canadians continue to need the government's ongoing support as businesses reopen and the economy is repaired and built back better for everyone. The funds requested in these main estimates will help the government do just that.

Government organizations are seeking funds to continue delivering already approved programs and services and to make investments to support Canadians during the pandemic and create the right conditions for a successful economic recovery. The funds requested reflect our ongoing commitment to investing in Canada's pandemic response, from economic support for individuals and businesses to paying for vaccines, enhancing support for mental health tools, virtual health care and more.

The main estimates provide information about the $342.2 billion in proposed expenditures for 123 organizations. That amount can be broken down into $141.9 billion for voted expenditures and $200.3 billion for statutory expenditures.

Statutory expenditures have already been authorized in existing legislation, such as the COVID‑19 Emergency Response Act and the Canada Recovery Benefits Act, so they are presented in the budget for information only.

In March, roughly $59 billion of the $141.9 billion in voted expenditures was approved to cover the requirements of organizations for the first three months of the fiscal year, including to continue the government's key operations, and for COVID‑19 response measures and emergency reports.

Of the total $342.2 billion being requested in the main estimates, just over $22 billion is related to the COVID‑19 pandemic response, split almost evenly between voted and statutory expenditures. This includes just over $10 billion for the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit.

Other significant changes in statutory spending from last year's main estimates include updates to major transfer payments, such as elderly benefits, the Canada health transfer and an increased climate action incentive payment published in the fall economic statement 2020.

Let me now focus on some of the larger organizations in these estimates. There are six organizations seeking more than $5 billion each in voted budgetary expenditures.

One of these is the Public Health Agency of Canada, which is asking Parliament for authorization to spend $8.7 billion. PHAC will use the money to continue its important work helping Canadians deal with the pandemic by investing in COVID‑19 vaccines, therapeutic products, medical equipment and PPE, as well as closing gaps in biomanufacturing.

PHAC is also responsible for maintaining quarantine facilities funded by the federal government, strengthening its border and health travel program and helping municipalities offer safe voluntary isolation sites to prevent the virus from spreading further.

Although the main estimates reflect government spending in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic, they also demonstrate ongoing support for other priorities that are crucial to Canadians' interests, such as national security and defence.

The Department of National Defence is presenting $22.8 billion in voted expenditures in the 2021-22 main estimates, which include investments in the “Strong, Secure, Engaged” defence policy, as well as important funding for equipment upgrades.

There is also the Department of Indigenous Services, which is seeking $13.4 billion. Included for Indigenous Services Canada in the estimates is a proposed net increase of $508.6 million to improve access to safe, clean drinking water in first nations communities. In addition, proposed spending includes increases of $122.6 million for supportive care in indigenous communities and $104.7 million for education programs at the elementary, secondary and post-secondary levels.

The fourth organization I will highlight is the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, which is seeking $7 billion through these main estimates.

These planned expenditures include a number of votes that are centrally managed by Treasury Board ministers and total nearly $3.7 billion. The funds are allocated to federal organizations and facilitate the Treasury Board's roles as employer, management board and budget office of the government. Just over $3 billion is also set aside for its responsibilities as an employer.

These expenditures will be used to make payments under the public service pension, benefits and insurance plans, including the employer's contribution to health, income maintenance and life insurance premiums.

Finally, the main estimates of the Treasury Board Secretariat also include a net increase of $27 million for program spending. The main objective of this increase is to improve diversity and inclusion in the public service and to ensure that the Canadian Digital Service can continue to provide critical digital products and services related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Another important priority for the government is international development and diplomacy. Through the proposed funding of the $6.3 billion in these estimates, Global Affairs Canada will continue to implement Canada's feminist foreign policy and support actions to reduce poverty and fragility in developing countries. Global Affairs Canada will also work with global partners to promote trade and continue to strengthen its consular program.

Hon. colleagues, Canadians also care about how we treat our veterans and how we want the government to honour their service. These men and women are the veterans who served to protect the very rights and freedoms we enjoy today. With the proposed funding in these estimates of $6.2 billion, Veterans Affairs Canada will continue to deliver important services and ensure benefit programs continue to meet the needs of our veterans.

I would like to mention a couple of other organizations that provide essential services to Canadians: the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The CBSA provides border services that support national security policies and facilitates the flow of people and goods across the border. To do this, it is requesting just over $1.8 billion.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation helps Canadians meet their housing needs. For example, it works with the provinces and territories, first nations, as well as the private and non-profit sectors to improve access to affordable housing. It is requesting approximately $3.3 billion to carry out its activities.

We would also like to assure Canadians that their government is committed to the principles of openness, transparency and accountability, especially in times of rapid change. Let me turn to that now, beginning with the overall estimates process, of which these main estimates are a part.

In our system of Parliament, the estimates are crucial to ensuring transparency and accountability in the government’s use of public money. The main estimates, supplementary estimates, departmental plans and departmental results reports, in conjunction with the public accounts, all help parliamentarians scrutinize government spending. I cannot overstate how important this information is to the functioning of our system of government. In fact, accountability is predicated on parliamentarians knowing how public funds are being spent, so that they can hold the government to account for its actions.

The government fully recognizes its responsibility and its commitment to accountability to Canadians through the members of Parliament who represent them. This commitment has taken on a special significance since the outbreak of the COVID‑19 pandemic and the emergency measures taken by the government.

Due to the unprecedented levels of spending in response to the pandemic, the government provided Parliament information that went beyond what is normally presented. For example, in the spring of 2020, the Minister of Finance began submitting to the Standing Committee on Finance a biweekly report on statutory spending in response to the pandemic. As for the estimates, we are providing side reports, with a detailed list of statutory authorities and an online annex on estimated pandemic-related expenditures.

There is also a complete breakdown of these planned expenditures by standard object, such as personnel, professional services, transfer payments and more. This information on planned spending on the COVID-19 response, along with estimated expenditures, is also publicly available on GC InfoBase, an easy-to-use online tool, and through the open government portal. By developing these datasets and digital tools, we are demonstrating our commitment to providing parliamentarians and Canadians with more information on where public funds are going and how they are being spent. To close the loop on expenditure reporting for the fiscal year, the government will also report on actual expenditures and results in the public accounts and departmental results reports in the fall.

Hon. colleagues, the government is committed to being open and transparent with Canadians and their representatives, particularly during this pandemic. We have introduced special measures to help our citizens, businesses and communities from all regions during these challenging times. Many of these measures were passed in Parliament through emergency legislation and continue to help Canadians through the crisis. Again, the full disclosure of all these is paramount for the government.

I should also mention part III of the main estimates, the departmental plans and the departmental results reports, which work together and have been part of the government's efforts to improve accountability to Parliament for the last 25 years.

In recent years, the government has tabled the main estimates and the departmental plans at about the same time.

The departmental plans show how each department plans to achieve results and provide further details on the resources requested in the main estimates. They also establish a link between program performance, expected results, commitments set out in the ministers' mandate letters, and government priorities. Departmental plans are organized according to core responsibilities and expected results, which are the baseline against which organizations monitor and report on their end-of-year performance.

That reporting and tracking is done through the department's subsequent departmental results reports, which are tabled in Parliament after the end of the fiscal year, at around the same time as the public accounts. All this detailed information is available on GC InfoBase, as well as departmental web sites. These reporting mechanisms ensure parliamentarians and Canadians can easily track our priorities and plan spending to see how we are achieving results.

I have gone into some detail describing the monies requested through these main estimates, why it is important and how we are ensuring transparency and accountability with respect to government spending, but let me come back to the key point. The story of the main estimates 2021-22 is more than just a story about numbers and expenditure management. It is a story about Canadians looking after each other.

We all know how hard the pandemic has hit Canadians and their families. It has been a matter of life and death for some, financial hardship for many and protecting our loved ones for us all. That is why the government acted quickly over the past year to provide financial help for individuals, businesses and the health care system.

A good number of these measures are ongoing in 2021.

These measures placed real pressure on many departments, which must continue to provide these emergency measures in addition to their core programs and services.

As parliamentarians, our work consists in ensuring that government organizations have the financial resources required to do the work that Canadians expect of them. Departments must have the financial capacity to continue protecting Canadians, and the funding proposed in these estimates will let them do that this upcoming fiscal year.

In closing, in the upcoming year, we will face ongoing and new challenges. The main estimates attest to the government's commitment to address these challenges while continuing to work on other national priorities.

It has been a long journey, and if COVID-19 has taught us anything, it is that we are in this together.

I would like to close my remarks by thanking my hon. colleagues on all sides of the House for their ongoing collaboration as we work together to help Canadians during these difficult times. As we finish the fight against COVID-19 and rebuild a resilient, economic recovery that creates jobs and growth for our people, I know that the government can count on members' support.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am astounded that the member talked about openness and transparency from the government. Does he not realize that this is the government that has redacted documents, prorogued Parliament so people could not find out about the WE Charity scandal, filibustered at committee and, just today, was found in contempt of Parliament for not delivering requested documents? I do not call that openness and transparency, but I digress.

My question today is about the transportation estimates, which is what we are here to talk about.

I notice that the government donated money to Air Canada, which gave its executives bonuses, and that sounds a lot like Bombardier and all those other Liberal friends. I do not know why the government is choosing winners and losers. It gave money to Air Canada and Air Transat but not to WestJet. Is it just Liberal friends and donors that get money from this government?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her question.

Concerning the transparency and availability of the data, which, as I mentioned, is available on GC InfoBase, it is very important for parliamentarians to have the means to do a proper analysis and ensure that the government is accountable for its spending.

It is very important for members of Parliament, especially those members of Parliament who choose be part of the public accounts committee, to make sure they have information in a timely and fulsome way so they can truly determine how the Government of Canada is spending its money and that it is meeting the expected requirements set out in the departmental plans for the upcoming year.

This is the reason why a couple of years ago we changed the way that we report the numbers to make sure the main estimates line up with—